Kerry's medical records: still not released to the public

[honeychile]

I've been trying to avoid this thread, mostly because I feel that after ANY election, it's more important to pull together than keeping destroying each other. Should I repeat that, or did it sink through?

Kerry's war history is not my concern at this time. What does bother me is that he testified in front of Congress and lied. He called himself and all the others who served in Viet Nam "rapists, baby killers" and something about the worst plunderers since Ghengis Khan.

Senator Kerry, when you defamed the Americans who served in Viet Nam, you lied about my brother. You lied about his friends, you lied about hundreds of thousands of good, decent men, many of whom did not live to protest your base portrayal. You did not have the right to lie about these men, and should never have the chance to be Commander In Chief of any military man! I will remember your lies next week, as I'm visiting the very momument to those you disparage.

Now, about President Bush: I'm 100% sure that having had relatives matriculate at Yale helped his chances of acceptance there. But what are the odds of staying in an Ivy League School, if you don't make the grades? This was a time when staying in school meant staying out of the service; while many professors were more than happy to inflate grades to help out students, many more were happy to flunk men for the same reason.

That's my 2¢ - take it or leave it. I don't plan to check this thread to see how people who know little about the situation pontificate on my views. Frankly, DeltAlum is one of the few people with whom I would calmly discuss this, as he is a contemporary of my brother and most other Viet Nam veterans.

[hoosier]

Originally posted by The1calledTKE
Show me this quote where he says he is smarter than Bush please.

Best of the Web Today - June 7, 2005

By JAMES TARANTO

A C Man in the Navy
On Jan. 30, John Kerry* told NBC's Tim Russert that he would release his full military records to the public, something he had refused to do during last year's campaign. It took 128 days, but today the Boston Globe reports that he had done so. The records revealed what many of us had suspected: Kerry served in Vietnam. But according to the Globe, "the lack of any substantive new material about Kerry's military career in the documents raises the question of why Kerry refused for so long to waive privacy restrictions."

A second Globe story, however, answers that question. Included in Kerry's military files were his transcripts from Yale, which were part of his application for officer training. Kerry, it turns out, had a 76 average for his years at Yale--the equivalent of a C and one point below George W. Bush's 77 average. Kerry had a difficult freshman year, scoring four D's, though he did manage a C in French.

So Kerry was almost as distinguished a scholar as the schoolmate who went on to become president of the United States. That doesn't seem so bad--but for candidate Kerry, it would have been devastating. After all, much of Kerry's appeal, such as it was, rested on intellectual snobbery.

His supporters described him, in the words of a March 2004 New York Times report, as "an intellectual who grasps the subtleties of issues, inhabits their nuances and revels in the deliberative process." In this view, Kerry's nose for nuance contrasted favorably with Bush's simplisme.

But what if Kerry simply lacked the ability to express himself clearly? Consider his answer when asked in a September 2003 debate to reconcile his vote for Iraq's liberation with his subsequent opposition: "The vote is the vote. I voted to authorize. It was the right vote, and the reason I mentioned the threat is that we gave the--we had to give life to the threat. If there wasn't a legitimate threat, Saddam Hussein was not going to allow inspectors in. Now, let me make two points if I may._._._."

He went on in this vein for 248 words (quoted in full here), and only someone with a superior intellect and too much time on his hands could possibly have made sense of his answer. "People will often be misled into thinking someone is brighter if he says something complicated they can't understand," IQ expert Linda Gottfredson told the Times' John Tierney last year. The revelation that Kerry was no better a student than Bush suggests that this is just what happened.

Kerry's appeal to intellectual vanity was in any case a politically dubious one. The last egghead to win the White House was Woodrow Wilson, and he was a genuinely accomplished scholar. In 1956, a supporter is said to have told Adlai Stevenson, "You have the support of every thinking person." He replied: "That's not enough. I need a majority."

Still, let's not sell Kerry short. He is, after all, a United States senator--which isn't bad for a C student. At least no one will ever again call him an underachiever.

[DeltAlum]

Originally posted by hoosier
His supporters described him, in the words of a March 2004 New York Times report, as "an intellectual who grasps the subtleties of issues, inhabits their nuances and revels in the deliberative process." In this view, Kerry's nose for nuance contrasted favorably with Bush's simplisme.

This is a comment on a comment made by Kerry supporters. It is not a comment by Kerry.

It doesn't prove to me -- or anyone else I would think -- that Kerry said he is smarter than President Bush.

What am I missing?

[The1calledTKE]

Originally posted by hoosier
Best of the Web Today - June 7, 2005

By JAMES TARANTO

A C Man in the Navy
On Jan. 30, John Kerry* told NBC's Tim Russert that he would release his full military records to the public, something he had refused to do during last year's campaign. It took 128 days, but today the Boston Globe reports that he had done so. The records revealed what many of us had suspected: Kerry served in Vietnam. But according to the Globe, "the lack of any substantive new material about Kerry's military career in the documents raises the question of why Kerry refused for so long to waive privacy restrictions."

A second Globe story, however, answers that question. Included in Kerry's military files were his transcripts from Yale, which were part of his application for officer training. Kerry, it turns out, had a 76 average for his years at Yale--the equivalent of a C and one point below George W. Bush's 77 average. Kerry had a difficult freshman year, scoring four D's, though he did manage a C in French.

So Kerry was almost as distinguished a scholar as the schoolmate who went on to become president of the United States. That doesn't seem so bad--but for candidate Kerry, it would have been devastating. After all, much of Kerry's appeal, such as it was, rested on intellectual snobbery.

His supporters described him, in the words of a March 2004 New York Times report, as "an intellectual who grasps the subtleties of issues, inhabits their nuances and revels in the deliberative process." In this view, Kerry's nose for nuance contrasted favorably with Bush's simplisme.

But what if Kerry simply lacked the ability to express himself clearly? Consider his answer when asked in a September 2003 debate to reconcile his vote for Iraq's liberation with his subsequent opposition: "The vote is the vote. I voted to authorize. It was the right vote, and the reason I mentioned the threat is that we gave the--we had to give life to the threat. If there wasn't a legitimate threat, Saddam Hussein was not going to allow inspectors in. Now, let me make two points if I may._._._."

He went on in this vein for 248 words (quoted in full here), and only someone with a superior intellect and too much time on his hands could possibly have made sense of his answer. "People will often be misled into thinking someone is brighter if he says something complicated they can't understand," IQ expert Linda Gottfredson told the Times' John Tierney last year. The revelation that Kerry was no better a student than Bush suggests that this is just what happened.

Kerry's appeal to intellectual vanity was in any case a politically dubious one. The last egghead to win the White House was Woodrow Wilson, and he was a genuinely accomplished scholar. In 1956, a supporter is said to have told Adlai Stevenson, "You have the support of every thinking person." He replied: "That's not enough. I need a majority."

Still, let's not sell Kerry short. He is, after all, a United States senator--which isn't bad for a C student. At least no one will ever again call him an underachiever.

Ok that is a post about Kerry's supporters but Kerry said no such thing. Nice try. You could have quoted me if you wanted to post about supporters.

[RACooper]

Okay a couple of points...

One, you can be an intellectual without being a stellar scholar (it helps), nor does being a stellar scholar make you an intellectual... there are many people currently or historically that I consider intellectuals, but that weren't all that scholarlly (or didn't have the time to bury themselves in their schoolwork).

Two, this one is for honeychile - Kerry said we, as in American soldiers, when testifying before congress; he didn't say all of the soldiers, or all of us (in the all Americans sense) - it's a fine ditinction, but one that I though members of GLOs could grasp... and one that doesn't make him a liar by any stretch of the imagination. Finally I gotta ask - what would give Kerry the right to speak about Vietnam and the record there?

[valkyrie]

Originally posted by honeychile
What does bother me is that he testified in front of Congress and lied. He called himself and all the others who served in Viet Nam "rapists, baby killers" and something about the worst plunderers since Ghengis Khan.

I am by no means a scholar of Viet Nam, but weren't there people who raped and people who killed babies there? Weren't there plunderers?

[KSigkid]

Originally posted by The1calledTKE
Funny they rip on Kerry for something else than why they wanted his records released. Kerry comes off as more intellectual than Bush. I don't think Kerry ever claimed he was smarter or Bush was stupid.

Who's ripping on Kerry for his grades? First of all, the article was in the Globe, which has been a staunch supporter of Kerry since he announced his candidacy. Second, I don't think anyone really cares; it's just kind of funny that his grades were so close to the President's when there was a general assumption that Kerry's GPA would have been higher.

[Rudey]

Originally posted by KSigkid
Who's ripping on Kerry for his grades? First of all, the article was in the Globe, which has been a staunch supporter of Kerry since he announced his candidacy. Second, I don't think anyone really cares; it's just kind of funny that his grades were so close to the President's when there was a general assumption that Kerry's GPA would have been higher.

He has problems seeing anything other than his viewpoint.

Kerry is not smart, is not scholarly, and is not an intellectual, but his team was quite successful at portraying him that way. That's the best summary of the article.

-Rudey

[hoosier]

Originally posted by Rudey
He has problems seeing anything other than his viewpoint.

Kerry is not smart, is not scholarly, and is not an intellectual, but his team was quite successful at portraying him that way. That's the best summary of the article.

-Rudey

Once again, Rudey puts a long article into three sentnces, and gets the entire message correct. It's a gift, for sure.

[hoosier]

And going back to 2000, Bush - who earned an MBA from Harvard - was called "dumb" in relation to Gore who flunked out of law school and the seminary.

[DeltAlum]

Originally posted by Rudey
He has problems seeing anything other than his viewpoint.

I saw that problem in both candidates. I continue to see it in the President.

I strongly suspect that both of these "silver spoon" young men majored in "Partying 101."

[DeltAlum]

Saw this on another bulletin board I read this morning.

"Bush/Kerry Grades: Newly released records show the supposedly more studious John Kerry had the same mediocre GPA as George W. Bush did when they both were at Yale. Of course, that means President Bush must be a lot smarter because he got the same grades without ever showing up for class! (Novak)"

[hoosier]

Limited Release
One hundred forty-two days ago, John Kerry* promised to release his military records. Two weeks ago the Boston Globe reported he had done so. But it turns out, as the New York Sun reports today, that he did not release them to the public:

The privacy waivers signed by Mr. Kerry authorized the release of "a single, one time copy of the complete military service record and medical record of John F. Kerry" to Glen Johnson of the Associated Press, Michael Kranish of the Boston Globe, and Stephen Braun of the Los Angeles Times.

Power Line has copies of the forms Kerry signed, but not the documents released to the three reporters. We'd have to say Kerry has fallen short of his promise to Tim Russert, which was: "I'd be happy to put the records out." That suggests making them public, not limiting access to a select group of reporters.

Meanwhile, CNN reports that "President Bush said Tuesday that he will visit Vietnam in 2006 to attend the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation summit." Kerry spent much of last year's campaign criticizing Bush for not going to Vietnam, but now it appears the president may do so before Kerry makes his military records public.

*_The haughty, French-looking Massachusetts Democrat, who by the way served in Vietnam.

- Opinion Journal

(Well, it looks like Vietnam veteran JK is as slick as "Slick Willie". I wonder what his definiton of "is" is?)

[The1calledTKE]

Good ole Hoosier and his love affair with Kerry. Everyone still got the answers they wanted people just want a reason to whine and take the focus of Bush and the war.

[DeltAlum]

There's no reason I know of that would compel anyone to release any personal record. There is still doubt that President Bush has been forthright in releasing all of his records either.

Besides THE ELECTION IS OVER! Which part of that don't you understand?